"None Of It Was True": 103 Years Later, The FT Admits It Lied And Colluded With The Bank of England

When one strips away the lies about central banks' "inflation and employment" mandates and focuses on what they really do - which is to keep asset prices artificially supported and volatility suppressed - the motive behind virtually every central bank act becomes readily apparent: preserve (and increase, if possible) confidence in the market and economy, while saying anything and everything that helps achieve this, or in other words, lie but don't get caught.

Today, thanks to the FT, we have proof of precisely this, in what may be the first recorded instance of a central bank openly lying in an attempt to preserve market stability... and getting caught.

On Tuesday, the Bank of England admitted that the UK government failed to find enough investors to fully cover its its 1914 War Loan, and was forced to turn to the central bank to help plug a deficit of more than £100m in the fundraising. However, it did so only after it lied to the public that the bond was oversubscribed:

"Despite claims it was swamped with buyers, the 1914 War Loan raised less than a third of its £350m target, attracting a very narrow set of investors, according to BoE employees writing on the Bank Underground website today." The bloggers uncovered the cover-up by trawling through the bank’s old ledgers.

As the FT notes, "the debt yielded 4.1 per cent, well above the 2.5 per cent payable on other government debt at the time, but it still failed to attract a wide enough pool of investors."

So why lie? For the same reason to this day central bankers around the world lie at every possibly opportunity: to preserve confidence in a fragile system, which can collapse the moment doubt spikes.

The government decided that news of a failed bond sale would have been “disastrous” to the general public, and so schemed with the Bank to plug the gap, the BoE now says. The central bank bought the outstanding securities on offer, and covered its tracks by purchasing the bonds in the name of its chief cashier, and listing them on its balance sheet as “other securities”.

Ironically, the FT which reported of the BOE's blog finding, was instrumental in publicizing and disseminating the lie on November 23, 1914, something which many have accused the paper of doing today.

The Financial Times played its role in convincing the public that the sale was a success, publishing a segment (which appears to be an advert) claiming that the debt was oversubscribed and offering “further particulars of this magnificent investment… upon request.”

It was all a lie. This is how the BOE's bloggers justify it:

For the Bank of England and economic policymakers more generally, this early failure led to the realisation that managing the national debt was a complex and, in war times, perhaps Herculean task. The episode marked an important step on the Bank’s transformation from private institution to a central bank. A decade after the Armistice, the altered role of the Bank prompted creation of a Parliamentary commission to examine its functions, ultimately setting it on a path to nationalisation.

Did this clear intention to mislead the public lead to any consequences? Here's the FT's take: "The BoE’s intervention uprooted the UK’s long-held laissez faire approach to capital, as the government prioritised the war effort over private investors. And although the hoodwink worked, the authors suggest that the failed sale prompted some soul-searching at the central bank:"

Unfortunately, over a century later, the soul-searching has led to zero tangible results, as lies in the name of preserving public confidence and avoiding "disastrous" - but true - news continue unabated, and those who dare to expose them are branded as "conspiracy theorists" and, more recently, Russian sympathizers.

As for the FT, the principal agent employed in propagating the central bank's lies, it had this to say:

Clarification: On 23 November 1914, a piece published in the Financial Times claimed the UK government’s War Loan was “oversubscribed”, with applications “pouring in”. The item described this as an “amazing result” that “proves how strong is the financial position of the British nation”. We are now happy to make clear that none of the above was true.

Well, thanks for "coming clean." We, for one, can't wait to find out what current stories and narratives the FT will admit some 103 years from today that it is "happy to make clear" were lies.

Most jounalists are the ultimate wannabees which is why they can be bought off so easily.

They wannabee politicians, so the office holders play on this weakness and invite them to swanky parties and dinners where they can run elbows with the uppities, and get inside info about new policy trends, and feel important.

In exchange for being allowed into the "in" crowd they write and broadcast what they are told or the invitaions stop.

They wannabee academically smart even though most of them are egotistical pansies and academic dunces, so college/university academians play on this weakness sand invite journos to scholarly meetings with information far beyond their understanding.

In exchange for for being allowed into the hallowed presence of academians who write books with big, impressive words, they promote policies and ideas that they do not understand, and use recently acquired words and phrases to make them sound smart and well read.

They wannabee rich so they placate the owners and editors of big MSM outlets with articles/fables that promote MSM social goals.

In exchange for favorable writing about things that they never really researched or cross checked, they get paid big fat MSM salaries and look fab on TV, and get to make asses of themselves at the White House press meetings with no repercussions, and put on a free Hollyweird movie audition on the internet while pretending to be intelligent.

They wannabee humanitarians even though they have no concept of history nor economics, so they endeavor to convince themselves and their similarly vapid audiences that they are compassionate.

So they get mixed up with gangs like Open Society, neurotic womens' groups, BLM, La Raza, etc., and promote ideas that they think will make the whole world a nicer place for everyone, even though they are oblivious to the fact that they were, are, and always will be ignorant gulpins who are sewing social dischord, civil violence, and cultural decay.

Be careful now. The Queen of Darkness is looking to become a preacher in the church i just read yesterday. The Queen to become an honest outstanding citizen. Im not buying into it but who knows. God works in mysterious ways. Hahahahahaha Hahahahahaha

Pardon my French, but: L'histoire est une suite de mensonges sur lesquels on est d'accord - translated : History is a suite of lies on which there is agreement. Probably concocted in some hotel suite someplace. Basically Fake News has been in fashion and been fashioned for 100 years, and really for all time. In fact one can argue that all of politcal work is to construct fake news to fashion support for legalized manipulation and extortion.

You might consider Jakob Schiff blocking Russian Bond issues but funding Japan's war in 1905 and his funding of Trotsky and the Russian Revolution and pressure on Wilson not to enter the War. Then again in Nov 1917 Russia left the War and JP Morgan had to pressure Wilson to join the War before German Divisions were transferred from the Russian Front to the West.......to preserve his loans to UK and France

Having a father with a paternal english line nothing surprises me re psychopathy, cruelty, lying, cheating, predatoring, pedoing, self aggrandisment, white trash at the core,cunning, manipulation and all that at home.

Hess along with most of the leading Nasi's, including Heider/Hitler/Hiller, were Jews. My mother's forebears originated in Germany. They've been here more than 200 years and the last name is still spelled the same way. But,the leading Nasi's families sure changed their last names often. Read about their detailed genealogy at:

There is a very good reason for that. When it looked like Gorbachev was going to agree to let Hess out of prison {something the Brits never counted on}, they sent in a team of SAS troops to kill one old man in his nineties. They strangled him in the courtyard of Spandau Prison while American Army MPs look on in horror {they hadn't been told or warned}. Why would they have done such a thing? TO PROTECT A STATE SECRET. The secret was this: At the time of Hess's flight to England in 1941, things weren't going so well for Britain in the war. Not everyone in the government was of the same mind as to what should be done. Churchill and his faction wanted to fight until the bitter end. But several others {mostly royals and aristocrats} wanted to see what kind of peace terms they could get from Hitler. It was through Hess that the peace faction in Britain contacted, using an unnamed official of the Vatican as the go-between. Hess discussed this with Hitler who was delighted and gave Hess his blessing to travel to England to meet the Peace faction in the flesh, and begin negotiations. Hess had many friends in British aristocratic circles, and was well acquainted with the Duke who's castle estate he flown to that fateful night. It was THREE DAYS BEFORE HESS WAS ARRESTED. He was treated like a guest and diplomat prior to that. What happened? The consensuses is that Churchill and the "bitter end" faction won out, especially after Hess slipped up and told them of the coming military offensive in Russia. At that point there was no point in discussing peace. But what to do with Hess? Well, they did what they always do: THEY SAID HE WAS CRAZY AND LOCKED HIM UP. Here is something to think about: If this story went down the way we have been told, that Hess left Germany on his own authority seeking out a peace accord, Hitler would have had the Gestapo throw his entire family in prison, YET HE DIDN'T. And no, it wasn't just because he was an old friend, Ernest Rohm was an old friend too, yet Hitler had him shot for ALLOT LESS.

The revelation of this truth would make allot of important people look bad. Who do you suppose that could be? Maybe King George VI? His brother Edward VIII {the Duke of Windsor} was on speaking terms with many leaders in the Reich, even Hitler. The truth is out there for those who give a damn. No need to wait a hundred years. Plenty of people in the English aristocracy know about what really happened concerning Rudolf Hess, they are covering it up to protect their privileged status. HAD THIS NEWS CAME TO LIGHT DURING OR SHORTLY AFTER THE WAR, IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE END OF THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR. Besides, if you bother to research what "House" the Windsor's really originated from, you would be shocked. Their ties to Germany are strong for a reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha